Göbekli Tepe is “just down the road” from where Noah’s Ark came to rest

by Damien F. Mackey “Göbkeli Tepe is in southeast Turkey, about 30 km from Karacadağ”. Asle Rønning Thanks to the wonderful research of Kenneth Griffith and Darrell K. White, we can now say, so I think, that Karaca Dağ, in the region of the spectacular Göbekli Tepe, is: Noah’s Ark Mountain (9) Noah's Ark Mountain In that article acknowledging their find, I wrote: The combined research of Ken Griffith and Darrell White has caused me … to move away from my former acceptance of Judi Dagh for the Mountain of Noah’s Ark Landing in preference for their choice of Karaca Dagh in SE Turkey. The pair have strongly argued for the validity of this latter site in their excellent new article: A Candidate Site for Noah’s Ark, Altar, and Tomb. (2) (PDF) A Candidate Site for Noah's Ark, Altar, and Tomb. | Kenneth Griffith and Darrell K White - Academia.edu My main reason for entertaining this switch is that the latter site appears to have been the place, unlikely as it may look, for the world’s first agriculture, including grapes, and for the domestication of what we know as farmland animals. For example, Ken Griffith and Darrell White write: This mountain, Karaca Dag, is where the genetic ancestor of all domesticated Einkorn wheat was found by the Max Planck Institute.1 The other seven founder crops of the Neolithic Revolution all have this mountain near the centre of their wild range.2 This was so exciting that even the LA Times remarked how unusual it is that all of the early agriculture crops appear to have been domesticated in the same location: “The researchers reported that the wheat was first cultivated near the Karacadag Mountains in southeastern Turkey, where chickpeas and bitter vetch also originated. Bread wheat—the most valuable single crop in the modern world—grapes and olives were domesticated nearby, as were sheep, pigs, goats and cattle.”3 …. Manfred Heun was the botanist who followed the DNA of domesticated wheat back to its source on Karaca Dag: “We believe that the idea is so good—the idea of cultivating wild plants—that we think it might be one tribe of people, and that is fascinating,” said Manfred Heun at the University of Norway’s department of biotechnological sciences, who led the research team. “I cannot prove it, but it is a possibility that one tribe or one family had the idea [emphasis added].”3 A 2004 DNA study of wild and cultivated grapevine genetics by McGovern and Vouillamoz found the region where grapevines were first domesticated. Vouillamoz reports: “Analysis of morphological similarities between the wild and cultivated grapes from all Eurasia generally support a geographical origin of grape domestication in the Near East. In 2004, I collaborated with Patrick McGovern to focus on the ‘Grape’s Fertile Triangle’ and our results showed that the closest genetic relationship between local wild grapevines and traditional cultivated grape varieties from southern Anatolia, Armenia and Georgia was observed in southern Anatolia. This suggests that the headwaters of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers in the Taurus Mountains is the most likely place where the grapevine was first domesticated! ... . This area also includes the Karacadağ region in the northern part of the Fertile Crescent.” …. [End of quotes] Another fascinating article on virtually the same subject is this one, entitled: https://www.sciencenorway.no/agriculture--fisheries-archaeology-forskningno/on-the-track-of-the-worlds-first-farmer/1448265 On the track of the world’s first farmer Agriculture may have originated in this landscape in the southeastern corner of Turkey. This view of the highlands is from the archaeological site Göbekli Tepe. (Photo: Manfred Heun) The very first farmer may have lived in a barren mountain landscape in Turkey over 10,000 years ago. Asle Rønningjournalist __________________________________________________________ PUBLISHED 31 JANUARY 2012 - 05:00 When and where did humankind first start cultivating the soil? The experts haven’t formed a single chorus on that issue, but a very good candidate for the site is found near the Mountain Karacadağ in Anatolia − in southeastern Turkey. This is where the first humanly modified grain was developed − einkorn [literally: single grain] wheat. The grain is now being more closely linked to one of archaeology’s major puzzles – the mysterious and ancient site Göbekli Tepe with its limestone megaliths decorated with bas-reliefs of animals. Nobody has been able to satisfactorily interpret their full significance. Göbkeli Tepe is in southeast Turkey, about 30 km from Karacadağ. T-shaped pillars with carved bas-relief animals at Göbekli Tepe. (Photo: Wikimedia Commons) Could hunter-gatherers have been the people who constructed this site 7,000 years before Stonehenge and the Great Pyramids of Egypt, and also become the first people to start cultivating the soil? Plant genetics can help answer that question. Damien Mackey’s comment: I do not accept the over-inflated dating for Göbekli Tepe at 10,000-12,000 BC. The article continues: A significant find Professor Manfred Heun at the Norwegian University of Life Sciences (UMB) is an expert on cereals. Along with Italian and Turkish colleagues in 1997 he determined that Karacadağ could be the original home of the cultivated form of einkorn. He’s returned time and again ever since. “It feels great being there. This is a mountainous area − Karacadağ has an elevation of over 1,900 metres. But it doesn’t look like a high mountain, it’s more like a Norwegian mountain plateau,” says Heun. The people who currently dwell in the region are stationary Kurds and Turks as well as nomadic Arabs who making a living off herding sheep, cows and goats. The primal wheat View of site and excavation at Göbekli Tepe (Photo: Wikimedia Commons) Evidence indicates that einkorn is our first cereal. It’s a kind of wheat which is much older than spelt, the grain so many health-conscious people now swear by. Einkorn was essential for humanity for several millennia but is now only commercially grown a few places in the world. The cultivated or domesticated variety of einkorn stems from a wild einkorn that still grows in mountain areas of the Middle East. We say a species of grain has been domesticated when it has undergone changes due to human influence. Domestication is a key term that unites archaeologists and geneticists who are striving to find the origin of agriculture. Professor Manfred Heun at UMB thinks he located the site where human beings initially cultivated einkorn wheat in 1997. Now he has pioneered his own einkorn beer, probably being drunk for the first time in Norway since the Bronze Age. (Photo: Asle Rønning) Just as the dog evolved from the wolf, and pigs evolved from boars, our cereals have been significantly altered by human cultivation. Silent witnesses These changes can be detected and read in the genes of modern crops as tales linked to the first farmers’ experiments. They are witnesses that speak to us nonverbally. In addition to einkorn, emmer wheat and barley are two major cereals that were domesticated very early in the Middle East. They share a primitive and natural trait: when mature the grain of the wild varieties falls to the ground so it can be spread with the winds. Those who wish to harvest these grains either have to tediously pick up the grains one by one after they fall to the ground or cut the stem with a scythe before it ripens. Mutations However, in wild populations now and then a natural mutation occurs in individual plants: the straw that supports the cereal doesn’t bend and break when the grain is mature. The cradle of agriculture could be placed in southeastern Turkey, 10,000 years ago (Map: Per Byrhing) Damien Mackey’s comment: The cradle of agriculture after the Flood, that is. The original cradle of agriculture was in the Garden of Eden (site of Old Jerusalem), a good millennium and a half earlier than the SE Turkey initiatives. The article continues: If someone is careful to only use these specimens as seed grain they can pass this genetic trait on to new generations of the plant. This is exactly what the first farmers have done. Other preferable traits were large grains, an evenly distributed ripening period and a reduction of the inedible chaff that protects the seed kernels. Any set of these and other preferable traits tells us that we are dealing with a domesticated variety of cereal. Archaeologists look for these indications of domestication when they find cereals during excavations of Stone Age settlements in the region. Like CSI The task that Heun and his colleagues assigned themselves was to find out where einkorn was originally domesticated. The region where wild einkorn wheat grows is large, covering parts of Turkey, Syria, Iraq and Iran. Wild einkorn is also genetically diverse. The challenge was to make a genetic match between different varieties of einkorn and today’s domesticated variety. Heun says this is somewhat akin to the work of forensic medical experts on CSI. Wild einkorn, Karadag, central Turkey (Photo: Wikimedia Commons) The difference is that they weren’t looking for a murderer, but rather a “crime scene” that was 10,000 years old. Help received from immigrants The results were achieved after cultivating an einkorn from seed samples and investigating the DNA from no less than 1,362 wild varieties that came from large areas of the Middle East and Europe. At this point Heun was working at the Max Planck Institute for Plant Breeding Research in Cologne and the team hung up a giant map of Turkey and the Middle East with the origins of the enormous number of einkorn varieties marked off. Many of the cleaners at the institute were immigrants from the region and they enjoyed finding their home birthplaces on the map. They also helped the scientists now and then when they were having trouble figuring out where to pin the grain types to spots on the map. “They often helped us by locating their towns,” says Heun. The grain varieties seemed to home in on the area around Karacadağ. This conclusion prevails today even though arguments can be made that einkorn developed at more than one spot; so the debate continues in international research circles. Three grains of rye After the einkorn study was published the origin of emmer wheat has also been traced to the same area. The lab results from geneticists are confirmed by archaeologists, who have found the oldest specimens of domesticated einkorn and emmer wheat from this very area, dated at 10,200 – 10,500 years ago. These can be traces of the earliest cultivation of cereals in the world. A settlement site at Abu Hureyra in Syria previously gained plenty of attention because of a discovery of a domesticated rye, dated at 12,000 to 13,000 years old. But the archaeological evidence for this site is rather skimpy – just three grains of rye – and in any case there is no proof that a tradition of rye cultivation occurred here. Might disappear When Heun visited Karacadağ the first time he found wild einkorn plants. The last time he was there he found none. He thinks overgrazing of sheep could be the problem and fears that precious stocks of wild grains might disappear forever because nomads run their livestock there. “The nomads are poor – nobody can blame them. But the Turkish State ought to do something to preserve the area,” says the UMB professor. Karacadağ is near Diyarbakir, which is the largest city in the Kurdish dominated southeastern region of Anatolia in Turkey. It’s close to the borders of Syria and Iraq. …. Mystical figures But the area has a much older history. In 1994 Göbekli Tepe was discovered. Its multi-tonne T-shaped pillars and megaliths decorated with mystical animal figures including, lions, hyenas and spiders are still being excavated from the sands. The oldest finds there are estimated to be 11,000 years old, from the time just prior to the Neolithic Revolution – the start of agriculture. This baffles the researchers, who cannot explain exactly what kind of place this was. But it’s believed that it was a large religious temple complex in use for hundreds of years, before it for reasons unknown were deliberately buried. However, new discoveries, which haven’t been published yet, link the cultivation of einkorn at Karacadağ more closely to the puzzling place. Maybe there is a common denominator between why the stone pillars were built and why the cultivation of einkorn commenced. Perhaps the answer is beer. Come on over for some beer? Erecting the Göbekli Tepe megaliths demanded an enormous amount of work. But what do you do if you want to get several hundred people to work together for weeks and months at a time, cutting, carving, dragging and lifting tonnes of rock? But of course, you offer them beer! Beer would probably have been a prestigious and rare commodity, both nutritious and healthy. In one of the archaeological layers at Göbekli Tepe, from a period designated as PPNB, tubs have been found that could have been used for making malt and brewing beer. “Tubs have been found that could have held 150 litres of water. These probably weren’t used for storing grain,” says Heun. Beer can only be made from grain and to be ensured access to such cereal it’s a good idea to plant a field of it. This could have been a motivation for growing cereals instead of finding them in the wild. These new findings correspond in time to domesticated grain species. But no discoveries of cultivated grain have been made in the oldest and best known parts of Göbekli Tepe. So hunter-gatherers are still thought to have first built and used the site. Garden of Eden? Whatever their initial impulse, the first farmers in the Middle East developed a package of plant species and domesticated animals that had an enormous impact and formed the basis of agriculture in Mesopotamia, Egypt and the Indus Valley in Pakistan. The gift of agriculture was passed on to the great civilizations in the fertile river valleys of the Tigris and Euphrates, the Nile and the Indus from barren areas of the same region. The most important plant species were einkorn and emmer wheat, barley, chickpeas (garbanzos), peas and lentils. Tubers were also domesticated just like the cereals. If one were to search for a single spot where all the wild varieties of all these domesticated plant species grew, the place to go would be just here – in southeastern Turkey and northern Syria. …. Fastest changes in genetic traits Now we have a lot more data from excavations further north. We cannot be certain that agriculture in the Middle East originated in just one place. Some propose that people in settlements all over the region tried out local plant species and hence, there were multiple cradles of agriculture in this part of the world. Some scientists stress that a lot of time would pass from the initial cultivation of wild grains until noticeable genetic changes start turning up. Manfred Heun disagrees. He points out that einkorn is self-pollinating. This makes it much easier for new genetic traits to pass from one generation to the next. On the other hand it is less likely to regress back to the initial wild traits than it is for species that are cross-pollinating. Found edible plants in nature Heun thinks that 20-30 years of cultivation could have been enough to establish the essential trait of stems that don’t break when the grain is ripe. So the first farmer could have experienced the results of his or her genetic selection efforts in the course of a lifetime. Damien Mackey’s comment: Especially if that “first farmer” was, who the first farmer actually was, the long-lived Noah! With all of the incessant rain-flooding in Sydney at present (around 21st August, 2025), BOM declaring a La Nina alert, it is not hard to harken back to the great Deluge in the days of Noah. Now, turning our attention to Karaca Dağ’s near neighbour, Göbekli Tepe, we read the following by Christoper Eames: https://armstronginstitute.org/304-g-ouml-bekli-tepe-stone-age-zoo-in-the-book-of-genesis somewhat similar to what Jim Corsetti has been on about: Could Gobekli Tepe Be Noah’s Altar? The Hidden Link to the Flood Myth - Joe Rogan & Jimmy Corsetti Göbekli Tepe, ‘Stone Age Zoo,’ in the Book of Genesis A ‘Stone Age zoo,’ Aboriginal Australians, booze and worldwide calamity at the earliest temple ever found—discoveries at this fantastical Turkish site parallel a peculiar early biblical setting. By Christopher Eames • January 2, 2021 Sumer is often noted as man’s “first civilization,” situated on the Mesopotamian plains at the edge of the Persian Gulf. This location, and the cities that emerged from it, are a perfect match for the biblical Shinar (a parallel name), described in the biblical account as the first civilization to emerge following the Flood. Genesis 11:1-2 state: And the whole earth was of one language and of one speech. And it came to pass, as they journeyed east, that they found a plain in the land of Shinar; and they dwelt there. Damien Mackey’s comment: No, no, no. The sooner we dismiss Sumer: “The Sumerian Problem” – Sumer not in Mesopotamia (9) “The Sumerian Problem” – Sumer not in Mesopotamia Christoper Eames now gets rather more interesting: Göbekli Tepe In the early 1960s, peculiar stone circles were noted in an archaeological survey in the southeastern Anatolia region of Turkey. They were initially dismissed as unimportant, until German archaeologist Klaus Schmidt began excavating the site, known as Göbekli Tepe (“Potbelly Hill”) in 1995. What he uncovered was utterly unexpected. …. The circular, 20-acre site was evidently of a religious nature. It was made up of several layers, the earliest of which were carbon-dated as far back as circa 10,000 b.c.e. (more on this dating further down). This shocking date put the creation of the site during the so-called Paleolithic, hunter-gatherer era—long before mankind was supposed to have settled into established, pastoral communities. Mankind wasn’t supposed to have been united and able to construct such monuments for thousands of years. Indeed, no evidence was discovered of a settled community. Yet this giant cultic area, sporting the world’s oldest-known megaliths (up to 60 tons in weight), had been built by the region’s inhabitants. What’s more, the builders of Göbekli Tepe exhibited an understanding of geometry—three of the main stone circles at the site were arranged in a precise equilateral triangle (a stunning discovery to scientists—a “grand geometric plan” that was only realized earlier this year). One of the standout things about Göbekli Tepe has to be the animals. It boasts numerous carvings of different animals. It also has the remains of multiple dozens of different species. Animals depicted on the stone pillars include snakes, foxes, boars, cranes, aurochs, sheep, donkeys, gazelles, leopards, lions, bears, spiders, scorpions, various insects, vultures and numerous other bird species—to name a few. Nearly 100 animals are depicted on the largest of the monoliths alone. And among the identifiable animals, there were numerous other unidentifiable creatures. The animal remains include the bones of various deer species, sheep, cattle, goats, donkeys, boars, wolves, foxes, leopards and various other wildcats, weasels, badgers, hamsters, hedgehogs, numerous gerbils and various other rodents, and dozens of bird species including geese, owls, magpies, eagles, quails, ducks and thrushes. One study examined some 40,000 animal remains. As Schmidt described it, this truly was a “Stone Age zoo.” Conversely, among the thousands of animal remains and depictions, only two fish were discovered. Not two sets of species—just two fish (a catfish and an unidentifiable cyprinid). And bizarrely, adorning some of the megaliths were a number of peculiar designs closely matching those found among the Aboriginal Australian community, as well as parallel objects at the site and depictions of Australian animals—leading to a flurry of articles speculating on some kind of Aboriginal connection to this location. Finally (as if the site couldn’t be any more odd), certain carvings at Göbekli Tepe apparently depict “massive global climate shifts,” according to a paper by University of Edinburgh researchers. They described a “cataclysmic event” related to the end of the Ice Age period. Among some of the carvings appeared to be observations of comets. What on Earth was this site? What were humans doing here? …. The Bible describes Noah, after leaving the ark, building “an altar” and sacrificing “of every clean beast, and of every clean fowl” on the altar. Göbekli Tepe stands testament to a form of ritual worship in relation to a multitude of animals. “First came the temple, then the city,” quipped Schmidt. Such is the account presented by archaeology—and such is the account presented in the Bible. …. Of Predators and Men As for the specific cultic function of Göbekli Tepe, scientists are left to speculate. A high proportion of the animals carved into the megalithic stones are predatory—as such, it has been wondered if these were some kind of religious talisman-gargoyle equivalent to ward off predators. A peculiar predator hunts his prey, as carved onto one of the Göbekli Tepe megaliths. Here again is a match for the pre-Shinar account. Nimrod is the infamous early leader and tyrant of the Bible, who brought together the early post-Flood civilization in Shinar. “He was a mighty hunter before [in place of] the Lord” (Genesis 10:9). Extra-biblical traditions assert that before gathering together in Shinar, mankind had been scattered and vulnerable among the wild animals—at the mercy of vicious predators. Among them, Nimrod became a “savior”—a “mighty hunter” who defended the population and rose up as a “mighty one in the earth” (verse 8), eventually gathering mankind together as one civilization in the plains of Shinar. This assessment, then, of an early mankind especially plagued by wild animals (a prevalence of different creatures that had survived aboard the ark) would fit the picture of Göbekli Tepe—a religious effort by the earliest, scattered communal generations to ward off wild animals. Another Parallel Another parallel between ancient Göbekli Tepe and the post-Flood-yet-pre-Shinar biblical account is that the earliest traces of an alcoholic beverage have been discovered at the site. Researchers in 2012 discovered what appeared to be chemical traces of beer being produced in limestone basins—demonstrating just how far back our thirst for grog goes. The same is also described in the Bible: The earliest account of alcohol is found in Genesis 9, which describes wine-making and overindulgence, and an ensuing incident related to drunkenness. …. Karaca Dağ and Göbekli Tepe provide us with a perfect landscape for the Ark landing, the earliest worship, the menagerie of animals, the first agriculture and viniculture, this being the very cradle of post-Flood civilisation from whence humankind would set forth to fill the entire world. There are many more biblical riches to be uncovered in the region if the WEF gets right out of the way.

Horrible Histories: Tropological Trojans

by Damien F. Mackey “As a result, the evidence for the Trojan War of Homer is tantalizing but equivocal. There is no single “smoking gun”.” Dr. Eric H. Cline While scholars are prepared to expend time trying to prove the historicity of Homer’s The Iliad and The Odyssey, which are replete with gods and goddesses, and demi-gods, they would generally, I suspect, be far less interested in the biblical (Catholic) books of Judith, Job and Tobit, based on real historical people and events. The life of holy Tobit, who served the mighty Assyrian king, Shalmaneser, in highest level office: Tobit may have been King Shalmaneser’s ‘rab ekalli’ (3) Tobit may have been King Shalmaneser's 'rab ekalli' coursed through a succession of 3 real neo-Assyrian kings, according to Tobit 1:2-21: “Shalmaneser”; “Sennacherib”; “Esarhaddon”. In fact, the Book of Tobit actually corrects the conventional neo-Assyrian succession. Apart from its failing to situate a Sargon (II) between Shalmaneser and Sennacherib - and that is because Sargon II was Sennacherib - it, when forensically examined, necessitates a merging, as well, of Shalmaneser with Tiglath-pileser. While the Book of Tobit, therefore, corrects ancient history, what does Homer do with the biblical data (say, Tobit, Job and Judith)? Before answering that question, who was this Homer, anyway?: https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/d8c7ix/who_was_homer/ “In Greek works written hundreds of years later, we get all sorts of fanciful stories about Homer's origins, his life, his afflictions (including crippling poverty and alleged blindness), and the era in which he supposedly lived. But none of this seems to have any basis in reliable historical knowledge. With the Homeric epics so central to the education of every Greek and to the formation of Greek identity, it was only natural that their author should become an almost mythical figure about whom many wise men claimed to know things that hadn't been known before. It is fair to say that the Greeks actually knew nothing about Homer from any local tradition or historical documentation”. “… including crippling poverty and alleged blindness …”. Interesting. Old Tobit experienced crippling poverty (Tobit 1:20) and he also went blind for a time (2:9-10). What does the so-called “Homer” - or what do the Greco-Romans - do with the books of Tobit, Job and Judith? Well, they appropriate large portions of them: Similarities to The Odyssey of the Books of Job and Tobit (3) Similarities to The Odyssey of the Books of Job and Tobit even introducing the goddess Athena (Athene) into their appropriations. In that article on The Odyssey, I gave these comparisons: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The resemblance of Tobit to the Odyssey in particular was not lost on that great student of literature [Saint] Jerome …. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This combined biblical influence upon Homer is, I think, more intelligible in light of my article: Job’s Life and Times (4) Job’s Life and Times in which I have identified Job with Tobit’s son, Tobias. Some Compelling Comparisons I need to point out right at the start that it sometimes happens that incidents attributed to the son, in the Book of Tobit, in Job, might, in The Odyssey, be attributed to the son's father, or vice versa (or even be attributed to some less important character). The same sort of mix occurs with the female characters. These are some of the parallels that I have picked up: The two chief male characters Tobit and his son, Tobias/Job, equate approximately to Odysseus and his son, Telemachus. Unlike the pious Tobit, though, Odysseus was a crafty and battle-hardened pagan, with a love of strong drink and an eye for women {goddesses}. But he nevertheless pined for his true wife, Penelope. The Suitors These unpleasant and self-serving characters are especially prominent and numerous in Homer’s The Odyssey. In the Book of Tobit, “seven” suitors in turn meet an unhappy fate in their desire for Sarah. The Sought-After Woman In The Odyssey, she is Penelope. She is Sarah in the Book of Tobit. The 'Divine' Messenger From whom the son, especially, receives help during his travels. In the Book of Tobit, this messenger is the angel Raphael (in the guise of ‘Azarias’). In The Odyssey, it is the goddess Athene (in the guise of ‘Mentes’). Satan, or Adversary (Book of Job) He is Poseidon in The Odyssey, the god who hounds down the story’s hero. He is Asmodeus in the Book of Tobit. According to the following, this Asmodeus is to be identified with the Iranian, Aeshma Daeva (http://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=12-02-036-f): Bearing just as obvious a connection with non-biblical literature, I believe, is the demon Asmodeus (Tobit 3:8), who is doubtless to be identified, on purely morphological grounds, with Aeshma Daeva, a figure well known in ancient Iranian religion …. The Friends Whereas, in the Book of Tobit, the young man’s journeying takes him amongst kindred folks (e.g. Raguel and Gabael), in The Odyssey, it is to the homelands of certain Greek returnées from Troy (e.g. Nestor and Menelaus) that young Telemachus travels. The Dog Yes, even a dog, or dogs, figure in both stories. P. Reardon, commenting upon this particular parallel in The Wide World of Tobit, follows the typical pattern of thought according to which the pagan mythology has precedence over the Hebrew version: The Larger World …. The resemblance of Tobit to the Odyssey in particular was not lost on that great student of literature, Jerome, as is evident in a single detail of his Latin translation of Tobit in the Vulgate. Intrigued by the literary merit of Tobit, but rejecting its canonicity, the jocose and sometimes prankish Jerome felt free to insert into his version an item straight out of the Odyssey—namely, the wagging of the dog’s tail on arriving home with Tobias in 11:9—Tunc praecucurrit canis, qui simul fuerat in via, et quasi nuntius adveniens blandimento suae caudae gaudebat—“Then the dog, which had been with them in the way, ran before, and coming as if it had brought the news, showed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail.”16 No other ancient version of Tobit mentions either the tail or the wagging, but Jerome, ever the classicist, was confident his readers would remember the faithful but feeble old hound Argus, as the final act of his life, greeting the return of Odysseus to the home of his father: “he endeavored to wag his tail” (Odyssey 17.302). And to think that we owe this delightful gem to Jerome’s rejection of Tobit’s canonicity! [End of quote] There is space here for only a few more of the many further parallels that I have observed between Tobit/Job and The Odyssey: Further Comparisons Only Son Tobias was the only son of Tobit and Anna (cf. Tobit 1:9 and 8:17). So was Telemachus the only son of Odysseus and Penelope: '[Telemachus] ... you an only son, the apple of your mother's eye...' (II, 47). Likewise Anna referred to her son, Tobias, as 'the light of my eyes' (Tobit 10:5). And Telemachus’s uncle will use that identical phrase: 'Telemachus, light of my eyes!' (XVI, 245). Longing for Death The aged Tobit, in his utter misery of blindness, longed for death, and thus he prayed to God: 'Command that I now be released from my distress to go to the eternal abode; do not turn Thy face away from me' (Tobit 3:6). This theme is treated even more starkly, and in more prolonged fashion, in the Book of Job (esp. Ch. 3). In The Odyssey, it is said of Laërtes that "every day he prays to Zeus that death may visit his house and release the spirit from his flesh" (XV, 239). And Odysseus, after having learned from Circe about the wretched existence of the dead in Hades, said: 'This news broke my heart. I sat down on the bed and wept. I had no further use for life, no wish to see the sunshine any more' (X, 168). The Suitors "On the same day" that Tobit had prayed to be released from this life, Sarah - back home in Midian "was reproached by her father's maids, because she had been given to seven husbands, and the evil demon Asmodeus had slain each of them before he had been with her as his wife" (Tobit 3:7, 8). In the Vulgate version of Tobit, we are informed that these seven suitors had lustful intentions towards Sarah (6:17). The Odyssey also tells about Penelope, who is tormented by the suitors who have invaded Odysseus’s home and are squandering the family's wealth. Penelope has to resort to the ruse of weaving a winding-cloth - ostensibly intending to make the decision to marry once she has completed it. But each night she undoes the cloth, in order to keep the suitors at bay (I, 28-33; II, 38-39). The prediction early in the story, that "there'd be a quick death and a sorry wedding for ... all [the suitors]", once Odysseus returned home (I, 32), was to be fulfilled to the letter when he dealt them all a bloody end. And indeed these words, a "sorry wedding" and a "quick death", might well have been spoken of Sarah's suitors as well, once the demon Asmodeus had finished with them. This Asmodeus is eventually overcome by Tobias, with great assistance from the angel. Asmodeus then "fled to the remotest parts of Egypt, and the angel bound him" (cf. Tobit 7:16 and 7:8:3). Even this episode might have its 'echo' at the beginning of The Odyssey, when the violent god, Poseidon (legendary father of the Athenian hero Theseus - born of two fathers: Poseidon and Aegeus, king of Athens), is found amongst "the distant Ethiopians, the farthest outposts of mankind ..." (I, 25). Ethiopia could indeed be described as "the remotest parts of Egypt". Heavenly Visitor ... she [Athene] bound under her feet her lovely sandals of untarnished gold, which carried her with the speed of the wind.... Thus she flashed down from the heights of Olympus. On reaching Ithaca she took her stand on the threshold of the court in front of Odysseus' house; and to look like a visitor she assumed the appearance of a Taphian chieftain named Mentes… (I, 27-28). The reader will quickly pick up the similarities between this text and the relevant part of the Book of Tobit if I simply quote directly from the latter: The prayer of [Tobit and Sarah] was heard in the presence of the glory of the great God. And Raphael was sent (3:16,17). Then Tobias ... found a beautiful young man, standing girded, as it were ready to walk. And not knowing that he was an angel of God, he saluted him.... 'I am Azarias, the son of the great Ananias' (5:5, 6, 18). The Questioning Tobit had interrogated the angel about the latter's identity, asking: 'My brother, to what tribe and family do you belong? Tell me ...', etc., etc. (5:9-12). Raguel exhibited a similar sort of curiosity: 'Where are you from brethren? .... Do you know our brother Tobit? .... Is he in good health?' (7:3, 4). In The Odyssey, too, this pattern (but with a Greek slant - e.g. the mention of ships) is again most frequent - almost monotonous. Telemachus, for instance, asks Athene: 'However, do tell me who you are and where you come from. What is your native town? Who are your people? And since you certainly cannot have come on foot, what kind of vessel brought you here?' (I, 29). (For further examples of this pattern of interrogation in The Odyssey, see pp. 72; 118; 164; 175; 208; 220). Athene replied to Telemachus, using a phrase that I suggest may have come straight out of the Book of Tobit - where towards the end of the story Raphael says: 'I will not conceal anything from you' (12:11). Thus: 'I will tell you everything', answered the bright-eyed goddess Athene. 'My father was the wise prince, Anchialus. My own name is Mentes, and I am a chieftain of the sea-faring Taphians'. Delaying One’s Guests Another noticeable tendency in these Israelite writings, as well as in The Odyssey, is for hosts to insist on their guests staying longer than the latter had intended, or had wished. This was perhaps the customary hospitality in ancient Syro-Mesopotamia, because it is common also in Genesis (24:25-26; 29:21-31:41). And it happens in The Book of Tobit, and indeed all the way through The Odyssey as well. For example, Telemachus says to Athene (I, 29): 'Sir, .... I know you are anxious to be on your way, but I beg you to stay a little longer, so that you can bathe and refresh yourself. Then you can go, taking with you as a keepsake from myself something precious and beautiful, the sort of present that one gives to a guest who has become a friend'. 'No', said the bright-eyed goddess. 'I am eager to be on my way; please do not detain me now. As for the gift you kindly suggest, let me take it home with me on my way back. Make it the best you can find, and you won't lose by the exchange'. (Cf. IV, 80; XV, 231-232). In like manner, Tobias was impatient to leave the sanguine Raguel and return home: At that time Tobias said to Raguel. 'Send me back, for my father and mother have given up hope of ever seeing me again'. But his father-in-law said to him, 'Stay with me, and I will send messengers to your father, and they will inform him how things are with you'. 'No, send me back to my father'. So Raguel arose and gave him his wife Sarah and half of his property in slaves, cattle, and money. (10:7, 8-10). The Dog(s) (a) The Leaving "... Telemachus himself set out for the meeting-place, bronze spear in hand, escorted ... by two dogs that trotted beside him" (II, 37). Also "[Tobias and the angel] both went out and departed, and the young man's dog was with them" (Tobit 5:16). (b) The Returning When Telemachus returned home: "The dogs, usually so obstreperous, not only did not bark at the newcomer but greeted him with wagging tails"(XVI, 245). The dog in the Book of Tobit was equally excited: "Then the dog, which had been with [Tobias and the angel] along the way, ran ahead of them; and coming as if he had brought the news showed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail" (Tobit 11:9). The Iliad, for its part, does some heavy lifting from the Hebrew Bible. See e.g. The Jewish Bible Quarterly (2016): LITERARY PARALLELS BETWEEN HOMER’S EPICS AND THE BIBLICAL PHILISTINES https://jbqnew.jewishbible.org/jbq-past-issues/2016/443-july-september-2016/literary-parallels-homers-epics-biblical-philistines/ See also my articles: Joshuan Miracle of the Sun absorbed into Homer’s Iliad https://www.academia.edu/122576373/Joshuan_Miracle_of_the_Sun_absorbed_into_Homers_Iliad ‘Homeric’ borrowings from life of King Saul https://www.academia.edu/75749605/Homeric_borrowings_from_life_of_King_Saul King Ahab and Agamemnon (6) King Ahab and Agamemnon Book of Judith’s impact upon Greco-Roman and Arabic myths https://www.academia.edu/83801583/Book_of_Judith_s_impact_upon_Greco_Roman_and_Arabic_myths Judith the Jewess and “Helen” the Hellene https://www.academia.edu/24417162/Judith_the_Jewess_and_Helen_the_Hellene And that is just the tip of the iceberg. Influence of the Book of Tobit Getting back to the Book of Tobit itself, it refers to other known historical events, too: the assassination of Sennacherib (see below); the destruction of Nineveh (14:15); the Jewish return from the Babylonian Captivity; and the rebuilding of the Temple (14:5). Ahikar (Ahuqar) And the Book of Tobit also introduces us to the most influential Ahikar, who became “second-in-command” to the potent Esarhaddon in the kingdom (Tobit 1:21-22): But not forty days passed before two of Sennacherib’s sons killed him, and when they fled to the mountains of Ararat, his son Esar-haddon reigned after him. He appointed Ahikar, the son of my brother Hanael, over all the accounts of his kingdom, and he had authority over the entire administration. Ahikar interceded for me, and I returned to Nineveh. Now Ahikar was chief cupbearer, keeper of the signet, and in charge of administration and accounts under King Sennacherib of Assyria, so Esar-haddon appointed him as second-in-command. He was my nephew and so a close relative. In the Book of Tobit we learn of - {paralleling Judith’s Achior and “Holofernes” [Achilles and Agamemnon?]} - Ahikar’s close association with Sennacherib’s oldest son, Ashur-nadin-shumi, called “Nadin” (Nadab) in the Book of Tobit: “Nadin” (Nadab) of Tobit is the “Holofernes” of Judith (3) "Nadin" (Nadab) of Tobit is the "Holofernes" of Judith This Ahikar is a verifiable historical figure in ancient Assyria, as Aba-enlil-dari: http://www.melammu-project.eu/database/gen_html/a0000639.html “The story of Ahiqar is set into the court of seventh century Assyrian kings Sennacherib and Esarhaddon. The hero has the Akkadian name Ahī-(w)aqar “My brother is dear” …. The latest entry in a Seleucid list of Seven Sages says: “In the days of Esarhaddon the sage was Aba-enlil-dari, whom the Aramaeans call Ahu-uqar” …”. The great man, and his writings, became widely influential, having a profound impact even on Islam. On this, see e.g. my articles: Ahiqar, Aesop and Loqmân (4) Ahiqar, Aesop and Loqmân and: Tobit’s nephew, Ahikar, carelessly projected into [the] Islamic Golden Age (5) Tobit’s nephew, Ahikar, carelessly projected into Islamic Golden Age Dr. Eric H. Cline has asked the question (2013): https://blog.oup.com/2013/05/trojan-war-fact-or-fiction/ The Trojan War: fact or fiction? The Trojan War may be well known thanks to movies, books, and plays around the world, but did the war that spurred so much fascination even occur? The excerpt below from The Trojan War: A Very Short Introduction helps answer some of the many questions about the infamous war Homer helped immortalize. By Eric Cline The story of the Trojan War has fascinated humans for centuries and has given rise to countless scholarly articles and books, extensive archaeological excavations, epic movies, television documentaries, stage plays, art and sculpture, souvenirs and collectibles. In the United States there are thirty-three states with cities or towns named Troy and ten four-year colleges and universities, besides the University of Southern California, whose sports teams are called the Trojans. Particularly captivating is the account of the Trojan Horse, the daring plan that brought the Trojan War to an end and that has also entered modern parlance by giving rise to the saying “Beware of Greeks bearing gifts” and serving as a metaphor for hackers intent on wreaking havoc by inserting a “Trojan horse” into computer systems. But, is Homer’s story convincing? Certainly the heroes, from Achilles to Hector, are portrayed so credibly that it is easy to believe the story. But is it truly an account based on real events, and were the main characters actually real people? Mackey’s comment: Yes, indeed, Achilles and Hector, complete fictions in themselves, were “based on” real (generally biblical) characters. Would the ancient world’s equivalent of the entire nation of Greece really have gone to war over a single woman, however beautiful, and for ten long years at that? Mackey’s comment: No. Could Agamemnon really have been a king of kings able to muster so many men for such an expedition? Mackey’s comment: No. And, even if one believes that there once was an actual Trojan War, does that mean that the specific events, actions, and descriptions in Homer’s Iliad and Odyssey, supplemented by additional fragments and commentary in the Epic Cycle, are historically accurate and can be taken at face value? Is it plausible that what Homer describes actually took place and in the way that he says it did? Mackey’s comment: No. Virgil’s story of the Trojan Horse has, in its essence, been lifted out of the Book of Judith. See Part One: “Cunning Sinon deceiving the Trojans”, of my article (above): “Book of Judith’s impact upon Greco-Roman and Arabic myths”. In fact, the problem in providing definitive answers to all of these questions is not that we have too little data, but that we have too much. Mackey’s comment: Really! The Greek epics, Hittite records, Luwian poetry, and archaeological remains provide evidence not of a single Trojan war but rather of multiple wars that were fought in the area that we identify as Troy and the Troad. As a result, the evidence for the Trojan War of Homer is tantalizing but equivocal. There is no single “smoking gun.” According to the Greek literary evidence, there were at least two Trojan Wars (Heracles’ and Agamemnon’s), not simply one; in fact, there were three wars, if one counts Agamemnon’s earlier abortive attack on Teuthrania. Similarly, according to the Hittite literary evidence, there were at least four Trojan Wars, ranging from the Assuwa Rebellion in the late 15th century BCE to the overthrow of Walmu, king of Wilusa in the late 13th century BCE. And, according to the archaeological evidence, Troy/Hisarlik was destroyed twice, if not three times, between 1300 and 1000 BCE. Some of this has long been known; the rest has come to light more recently. Thus, although we cannot definitively point to a specific “Trojan War,” at least not as Homer has described it in the Iliad and the Odyssey, we have instead found several such Trojan wars and several cities at Troy, enough that we can conclude there is a historical kernel of truth — of some sort — underlying all the stories. …. In 1964, the eminent historian Moses Finley suggested that we should move the narrative of the Trojan War from the realm of history into the realm of myth and poetry until we have more evidence. …. Mackey’s comment: Hear, hear!

Tobit’s nephew, Ahikar, carelessly projected into Islamic Golden Age

Part One: Ahikar, a real historical person, embellished by Damien F. Mackey “Ahikar the son of my brother Anael, was appointed chancellor of the exchequer for the kingdom and given the main ordering of affairs”. Tobit 1:21 Ahikar’s contemporary the heroine Judith, whom Ahikar (as Achior) met shortly after she and her maid had carried the head of “Holofernes” in a basket back to “Bethulia”, has likewise been projected into a supposed AD time, c. 900 AD, as Gudit (or Judith): Judith the Simeonite and Judith the Semienite (6) Judith the Simeonite and Judith the Semienite | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu How does this happen? And, what a story Ahikar (or Ahiqar) has to tell! He (as Achior) had been left for dead by “Holofernes” for having dared to suggest that an Israel with the aid of the Lord would be irresistible. So “Holofernes” had him tied up within close proximity of Judith’s town of “Bethulia” (Shechem), there to die with the people whom he had just verbally defended. Achior was taken in by the Bethulians, whose leader at the time was the Simeonite Uzziah, the great prophet Isaiah. Then, after Judith with her maid had returned triumphantly from the Assyrian camp, she asked to see Achior (Judith 14:6-7): So they summoned Achior from the house of Uzziah. When he came and saw the head of Holofernes in the hand of one of the men in the assembly of the people, he fell down on his face in a faint. When they raised him up he threw himself at Judith’s feet and did obeisance to her and said, ‘Blessed are you in every tent of Judah! In every nation those who hear your name will be alarmed. Now tell me what you have done during these days’. This famous Israelite pair, Judith and Ahikar, who appear in the Catholic Bible for the era of c. 700 (conventional dating), have been recklessly projected into a c. 900 AD, and later, time – a shocking time warp of more than a millennium and a half! How does this happen? (See also Part Two) Seleucids/Ptolemies divinised ancient heroes The Ptolemies re-presented some famous characters of Egyptian history as ‘saints’. Ancient notables of Egyptian history, such as Imhotep and Amenhotep son of Hapu, became, in the hands of the later Ptolemies, thaumaturgists and quasi-divine. Thus Dietrich Wildung wrote of this pair as ‘becoming gods’ (Imhotep und Amenhotep. Gottwerdung im alten Ägypten, Münchner Ägyptologische Studien, 36, 1977). The Seleucids did the same with - to give one example - the legendary King Solomon, who became, in their hands, the temple building Sumerian notable, Gudea: Prince of Lagash (6) Prince of Lagash | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu The Seleucids greatly embellished the talents of these, admittedly already striking, ancient celebrities. And I suspect that the same must have been done with Ahikar (Achior), already a significant person in his own right, to whom has artificially been added encyclopædic wisdom and magical skills as one might read of in a fantastic Arabian Nights legend. Hence we now find, as I have often quoted: “The story of Ahikar is one of the most phenomenal in the ancient world in that it has become part of many different literatures and has been preserved in several different languages: Syriac, Arabic, Armenian, Greek, Slavonic, and Old Turkish. The most ancient recension is the Aramaic, found amongst the famous 5th-cent. BC papyri that were discovered … on Elephantine Island in the Nile. The story worked its way into the Arabian nights and the Koran; it influenced Aesop, the Church Fathers as well as Greek philosophers, and the OT itself”. Of particular interest for this study is the influence of Ahikar upon the Koran (Qur'an). Indeed, the sage Koranic character, Luqman (Lokman), is thought by some to have been taken from Ahikar himself: Ahiqar and Aesop. Part Two: Ahiqar, Aesop and Lokman (13) Ahiqar and Aesop. Part Two: Ahiqar, Aesop and Lokman | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu 1. The real Ahikar (a) Kingdom of Assyria The young Ahikar (Achior) had a stellar career in the kingdom of Assyro-Babylonia, somewhat akin to that of the prophet Daniel. According to his uncle, Tobit (1:22): “… when Sennacherib was emperor of Assyria, Ahikar had been wine steward, treasurer, and accountant, and had been in charge of the official seal”. When the Assyrians first successfully invaded Jerusalem, Ahikar, the Rabshakeh, was King Sennacherib’s mouthpiece, he being eloquent and, apparently, multi-lingual. When King Hezekiah’s envoys implored him to speak in Aramaïc rather than Hebrew, before the walls of Jerusalem, the Rabshakeh (“field commander”) refused to comply (Isaiah 36:11-21): Then Eliakim, Shebna and Joah said to the field commander, ‘Please speak to your servants in Aramaic, since we understand it. Don’t speak to us in Hebrew in the hearing of the people on the wall’. But the commander replied, ‘Was it only to your master and you that my master sent me to say these things, and not to the people sitting on the wall—who, like you, will have to eat their own excrement and drink their own urine?’ Then the commander stood and called out in Hebrew, ‘Hear the words of the great king, the king of Assyria! This is what the king says: Do not let Hezekiah deceive you. He cannot deliver you! Do not let Hezekiah persuade you to trust in the LORD when he says, ‘The LORD will surely deliver us; this city will not be given into the hand of the king of Assyria.’ ‘Do not listen to Hezekiah. This is what the king of Assyria says: Make peace with me and come out to me. Then each of you will eat fruit from your own vine and fig tree and drink water from your own cistern, until I come and take you to a land like your own—a land of grain and new wine, a land of bread and vineyards. ‘Do not let Hezekiah mislead you when he says, ‘The LORD will deliver us’. Have the gods of any nations ever delivered their lands from the hand of the king of Assyria? Where are the gods of Hamath and Arpad? Where are the gods of Sepharvaim? Have they rescued Samaria from my hand? Who of all the gods of these countries have been able to save their lands from me? How then can the LORD deliver Jerusalem from my hand?’ But the people remained silent and said nothing in reply, because the king had commanded, “Do not answer him”. There is nothing to suggest from any of this, so far, that Ahikar was anything more than a competent military commander and loyal servant of the Great King of Assyria. But, in the Book of Tobit, we learn that Ahikar was the mentor of Nadin (or Nadab) - and his “uncle” (presumably through marriage) - who was Sennacherib’s oldest son, Ashur-nadin-shumi, and who was to become the ill-fated “Holofernes” of the Judith drama. We also learn that Ahikar was kind, he having looked after Tobit during his blindness, before being commissioned to govern the land of Elam (Elymaïs) (Tobit 2:10): I [Tobit] went to physicians to be healed, but the more they treated me with ointments the more my vision was obscured by the white films, until I became completely blind. For four years I remained unable to see. All my kindred were sorry for me, and Ahikar took care of me for two years before he went to Elymais. Ahikar and Nadin were present at the wedding of Tobias (Tobiah) and Sarah after the elderly Tobit had been miraculously cured of his blindness by the angel Raphael. These were no ordinary times (Tobit 11:17-18): That day there was joy for all the Jews who lived in Nineveh. Ahiqar and his nephew Nadin were also on hand to rejoice with Tobit. Tobiah’s wedding feast was celebrated with joy for seven days, and many gifts were given to him. Ahikar will also intervene with king Esarhaddon, enabling for Tobit to return home after his desperate flight from the now-deceased Sennacherib (Tobit 1:21-22): But not forty days passed before two of Sennacherib’s sons killed him, and they fled to the mountains of Ararat, and his son Esar-haddon reigned after him. He appointed Ahikar, the son of my brother Hanael over all the accounts of his kingdom, and he had authority over the entire administration. Ahikar interceded for me, and I returned to Nineveh. Now Ahikar was chief cupbearer, keeper of the signet, and in charge of administration of the accounts under King Sennacherib of Assyria; so Esar-haddon reappointed him. He was my nephew and so a close relative. From the Judith drama we learn that Ahikar, or Achior, was now leader of a foreign contingent in the Assyrian army, wrongly called “Ammonite”, but should read Elamite. This mistake is one of the main reasons why the Book of Judith has not been accepted into the Jewish canon (Deuteronomy 23:3): “No Ammonite or Moabite or any of their descendants may enter the assembly of the LORD, not even in the tenth generation”. For, as we read in Judith 14:10: “When Achior saw all that the God of Israel had done, he believed firmly in God. So he was circumcised and joined the house of Israel, remaining so to this day”. Presumably Achior was, like most of his tribe in those days, neglectful of Yahwism. As Tobit recounts (1:4-6): When I lived as a young man in my own country, in the land of Israel, the entire tribe of my ancestor Naphtali broke away from the house of David, my ancestor, and from Jerusalem, the city that had been singled out of all Israel’s tribes that all Israel might offer sacrifice there. It was the place where the Temple, God’s dwelling, had been built and consecrated for all generations to come. All my kindred, as well as the house of Naphtali, my ancestor, used to offer sacrifice on every hilltop in Galilee to the calf that Jeroboam, king of Israel, had made in Dan. But I alone used to go often to Jerusalem for the festivals, as was prescribed for all Israel by longstanding decree. A dying Tobit will praise Ahikar to his son Tobias for Ahikar’s “almsgiving”, contrasting his nephew with the treacherous Nadin/Nadab (Tobit 14:10-11): ‘See, my son, what Nadab did to Ahikar, who had reared him. Was he not, while still alive, brought down into the earth? For God repaid him to his face for this shameful treatment. Ahikar came out into the light, but Nadab went into the eternal darkness because he tried to kill Ahikar. Because he gave alms, he escaped the fatal trap that Nadab had set for him, but Nadab fell into it himself and was destroyed. So now, my children, see what almsgiving accomplishes and what injustice does—it brings death!’ Ahikar/Achior also appears as “Arioch” in a gloss in the Book of Judith (1:6): “… King Arioch of Elam”. The glossator had obviously failed to realise that this was Tobit’s “Ahikar [who] … went to Elymaïs [Elam]”. Now, before we proceed to consider the fantastically embellished Arabian Nights version of Ahikar, we need to add yet an extra dimension to the real person. This will have huge ramifications for the Golden Age of Islam – my focus there being on the intellectual aspect of that so-called Golden Age. (b) Kingdom of Chaldea (Babylonia) The lives of the Tobiads (Tobit, Tobias, Ahikar) passed through the tumultuous reign of Sennacherib and on into the far more benign (for the Tobiads) reign of Esarhaddon. Now, Esarhaddon, called a “son” of Sennacherib in Tobit 1:21, was not Sennacherib’s actual biological son, nor was he an Assyrian. Esarhaddon was a Chaldean, whose reign marks the beginning of the Chaldean dynasty. Esarhaddon was none other than Nebuchednezzar ‘the Great’: Esarhaddon a tolerable fit for King Nebuchednezzar (12) Esarhaddon a tolerable fit for King Nebuchednezzar | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu That makes it quite possible that Ahikar (Arioch) was the “Arioch” of Daniel 2:24-25, a high official of King Nebuchadnezzar. But far more importantly for this study is my identification of a sage official of Nebuchednezzar due to my folding, in my university thesis (2007), of Nebuchednezzar so-called I (c. 1100 BC, conventional dating) with II (c. 600 BC, conventional dating). The famous official, Esagil-kinni-ubba, will become vital for explaining the intellectual Golden Age of Islam. This is what I wrote about Esagil-kinni-ubba (of various spellings) in my thesis: A Revised History of the Era of King Hezekiah of Judah and its Background AMAIC_Final_Thesis_2009.pdf I believed that I may have found - over and above some very compelling Babylonian-Elamite parallels - a connection between a ‘Middle’ kingdom vizier of great wisdom and a similarly celebrated ‘Neo’ kingdom sage. I wrote about this as follows, then wrongly suspecting that Nebuchednezzar so-called I was the same ruler as my composite king Sargon II-Sennacherib (Volume One, pp. 185-187): A Legendary Vizier (Ummânu) Perhaps a further indication of a need for merging the C12th BC king of Babylon, Nebuchednezzar I, with the C8th BC king of Assyria, Sargon II/ Sennacherib, is that one finds during the reign of ‘each’ a vizier of such fame that he was to be remembered for centuries to come. It is now reasonable to assume that this is one and the same vizier. I refer, in the case of Nebuchednezzar I, to the following celebrated vizier: … “The name Esagil-kini-ubba, ummânu or “royal secretary” during the reign of Nebuchednezzar I, was preserved in Babylonian memory for almost one thousand years – as late as the year 147 of the Seleucid Era (= 165 B.C.) …”. Even better known is Ahikar (var. Akhiqar), of Sennacherib’s reign, regarding whose immense popularity we read: …. The story of Ahikar is one of the most phenomenal in the ancient world in that it has become part of many different literatures and has been preserved in several different languages: Syriac, Arabic, Armenian, Greek, Slavonic, and Old Turkish. The most ancient recension is the Aramaic, found amongst the famous 5th-cent. BC papyri that were discovered … on Elephantine Island in the Nile. The story worked its way into the Arabian nights and the Koran; it influenced Aesop, the Church Fathers as well as Greek philosophers, and the OT itself. According to the first chapter of [the Book of Tobit]: “Ahikar had been chief cupbearer, keeper of the signet, administrator and treasurer under Sennacherib” and he was kept in office after Sennacherib’s death. At some point in time Ahikar seems to have been promoted to Ummânu, or Vizier, second in power in the mighty kingdom of Assyria, “Chancellor of the Exchequer for the kingdom and given the main ordering of affairs” (1:21, 22). Ahikar was Chief Cupbearer, or Rabshakeh … during Sennacherib’s Third Campaign when Jerusalem was besieged (2 Kings 18:17; Isaiah 36:2). His title (Assyrian rab-šakê) means, literally, ‘the great man’. It was a military title, marking its bearer amongst the greatest of all the officers. Tobit tells us that Ahikar (also given in the Vulgate version of [the Book of Tobit] as Achior) was the son of his brother Anael (1:21). Ahikar was therefore Tobit’s nephew, of the tribe of Naphtali, taken into captivity by ‘Shalmaneser’. This Ahikar/Achior was - as I shall be arguing in VOLUME TWO (cf. pp. 8, 46-47) - the same as the important Achior of [the Book of Judith]. Kraeling, whilst incorrectly I believe suggesting that: …. “There does not appear to be any demonstrable connection between this Achior [of the Book of Judith] and the Ahikar of the [legendary] Aramaic Story”, confirms however that the name Achior can be the same as Ahikar …. …. I had suggested above that Adad-apla-iddina, ruler of Babylon at the time of Tiglathpileser I, may have been the same person as Merodach-baladan I/II. I may now be able to strengthen this link to some degree through the agency of the vizier just discussed. For, according to Brinkman: …. “… Esagil-kini-ubba served as ummânu … under Adad-aplaiddina…”. [End of quote] One further matter of importance regarding “The real Ahikar” is that his Assyrian name was Aba-enlil-dari “whom the Aramaeans call Ahu-uqar [Ahiqar]”: http://www.melammu-project.eu/database/gen_html/a0000639.html This name will also become important in the context of the Islamic Golden Age. 2. The fantasy Ahikar We read of the “Ahiqar story”, “of great popularity”, at: http://www.melammu-project.eu/database/gen_html/a0000639.html The story of Ahiqar is set into the court of seventh century Assyrian kings Sennacherib and Esarhaddon. The hero has the Akkadian name Ahī-(w)aqar “My brother is dear”, but it is not clear if the story has any historical foundation. The latest entry in a Seleucid list of Seven Sages says: “In the days of Esarhaddon the sage was Aba-enlil-dari, whom the Aramaeans call Ahu-uqar” which at least indicates that the story of Ahiqar was well known in the Seleucid Babylonia. The oldest form of the story of Ahiqar itself is available in the Old Aramaic fragments from the end of the fifth century BCE and were discovered in the ruins of Elephantine in Egypt. The story of Ahiqar was incorporated into Greek legendary life of Aeseop - the adventures and maxims of the Assyrian sage were transferred to his Greek counterpart. The Syriac Ahiqar book is of non-Christian character and belongs to the oldest period of Syriac literature, to the first two centuries CE. Later versions in Armanian, Arabic, and Old Church Slavonic are all closely related to the Syriac version. From the Armenian the story of Ahiqar was translated into Kipchak-Turkish and into another Turkic language, while the Romanian translation is related to the Church Slavonic text. A selection of the precepts of Ahiqar, but not his story, was included in an Arabic Christian anthology which was later translated into Ethiopic. There is another Ethiopic version which is shorter and also clearly translated into Arabic. There are references to Ahiqar in Tobit and also other quotations from his maxims in various other books of the Bible, especially in the book of Sirach. Also a set of the Middle Persian (Pahlavi) didactic books which were associated with the name Ādurbād, a historical person of the fourth century CE Zoroastrianism, reveal strong affinities with the Akkadian-Aramaic story of Ahiqar. The Admonitions of Ādurbād contains many parallels to the Ahiqar maxims in several languages. Given the great popularity of the Ahiqar story in the first centuries of the Christian era and the long symbiosis of Iranian and Aramaic civilisation, there is certainly nothing wrong with the assumption that Persian authors of the Sasanian period may have been familiar with it. [End of quote] From a sober military governor and administrator of the highest level for the kingdoms of Assyria and Babylonia, a wise and kindly man who practised almsgiving, Ahikar will be transformed through later legend into a sage of enyclopædic knowledge - an ancient Leonardo da Vinci, so to speak - especially as we trace him in Part Two through his ‘Islamic’ guises. Ahikar transformed Here is the fantastic Story of Ahikar: https://sacred-texts.com/bib/fbe/fbe259.htm Ahikar, Grand Vizier of Assyria, has 60 wives but is fated to have no son. Therefore he adopts his nephew. He crams him full of wisdom and knowledge more than of bread and water. THE story of Haiqâr [Ahiqar] the Wise, Vizier of Sennacherib the King, and of Nadan, sister's son to Haiqâr the Sage. 2 There was a Vizier in the days of King Sennacherib, son of Sarhadum [Esarhaddon?], King of Assyria and Nineveh, a wise man named Haiqâr, and he was Vizier of the king Sennacherib. 3 He had a fine, fortune and much goods, and he was skilful, wise, a philosopher, in knowledge, in opinion and in government, and he had married sixty women, and had built a castle for each of them. 4 But with it all he had no child by any. of these women, who might be his heir. 5 And he was very sad on account of this, and one day he assembled the astrologers and the learned men and the wizards and explained to them his condition and the matter of his barrenness. 6 And they said to him, 'Go, sacrifice to the gods and beseech them that perchance they may provide thee with a boy.' 7 And he did as they told him and offered sacrifices to the idols, and besought them and implored them with request, and entreaty. 8 And they answered him not one word. And he went away sorrowful and dejected, departing with a pain at his heart. 9 And he returned, and implored the Most High God, and believed, beseeching Him with a burning in his heart, saying, 'O Most High God, O Creator of the Heavens and of the earth, O Creator of all created things! 10 I beseech Thee to give me a boy, that I may be consoled by him that he may be present at my heath, that he may close my eyes, and that he may bury me.' 11 Then there came to him a voice saying, 'Inasmuch as thou hast relied first of all on graven images, and hast offered sacrifices to them, for this reason thou shalt remain childless thy life long. 12 But take Nadan thy sister's son, and make him thy child and teach him thy learning and thy good breeding, and at thy death he shall bury thee.' 13 Thereupon he took Nadan his sister's son, who was a little suckling. And he handed him over to eight wet-nurses, that they might suckle him and bring him up. 14 And they brought him up with good food and gentle training and silken clothing, and purple and crimson. And he was seated upon couches of silk. 15 And when Nadan grew big and walked, shooting up like a tall cedar, he taught him good manners and writing and science and philosophy. 16 And after many days King Sennacherib looked at Haiqâr and saw that he had grown very old, and moreover he said to him. 17 'O my honoured friend, the skilful, the trusty, the wise, the governor, my secretary, my vizier, my Chancellor and director; verily thou art grown very old and weighted with years; and thy departure from this world must be near. 18 Tell me who shall have a place in my service after thee.' And Haiqâr said to him, 'O my lord, may thy head live for ever! There is Nadan my sister's son, I have made him my child. 19 And I have brought him up and taught him my wisdom and my knowledge.' 20 And the king said to him, 'O Haiqâr! bring him to my presence, that I may see him, and if I find him suitable, put him in thy place; and thou shalt go thy way, to take a rest and to live the remainder of thy life in sweet repose.' 21 Then Haiqâr went and presented Nadan his sister's son. And he did homage and wished him power and honour. 22 And he looked at him and admired him and rejoiced in him and said to Haiqâr: 'Is this thy son, O Haiqâr? I pray that God may preserve him. And as thou hast served me and my father Sarhadum so may this boy of thine serve me and fulfil my undertakings, my needs, and my business, so that I may honour him and make him powerful for thy sake.' 23 And Haiqâr did obeisance to the king and said to him, 'May thy head live, O my lord the king, for ever! I seek from thee that thou mayst be patient with my boy Nadan and forgive his mistakes that he may serve thee as it is fitting.' 24 Then the king swore to him that he would make him the greatest of his favourites, and the most powerful of his friends, and that he should be with him in all honour and respect. And he kissed his hands and bade him farewell. 25 And he took Nadan. his sister's son with him and seated him in a parlour and set about teaching him night and day till he had crammed him with wisdom and knowledge more than with bread and water. [End of quote] There follows a list of maxims, some of which are straight out of Tobit 4. We read more about the Story of Ahikar from professor Susan Niditch at: https://www.thetorah.com/article/joseph-interprets-pharaohs-dreams-an-israelite-type-922-folktale …. In brief, the story tells about an Assyrian [sic] wise man named Ahiqar, who served at the courts of Sennacherib and his son Esarhaddon. As Ahiqar has no son, he adopts his nephew Nadan and treats him as his own son, and asks Esarhaddon to accept Nadan as his counselor upon Ahiqar’s retirement. Nadan, however, deals treacherously with his uncle, accusing him of disloyalty to the king. Esarhaddon orders an officer by the name of Nabu-šuma-iškun to find Ahiqar and execute him, but as Ahiqar had once saved Nabu-šuma-iškun’s life in the past, he asks for reciprocity in return. Nabu-šuma-iškun agrees, kills one of his own slaves to fake Ahiqar’s death, and hides Ahiqar in a makeshift prison, where he lives as a castaway or outcast. …. News of the great wise man Ahiqar’s “death” reaches the ears of the Pharaoh of Egypt, who sees an opportunity to hurt his Assyrian rival. The Pharaoh challenges Esarhaddon with a riddle-like trial or wager: Egypt would like to build a castle in the air. If Esarhaddon can send him someone who knows how to do this, Egypt will pay three years of taxes to Assyria, but if Assyria cannot send Egypt someone with this knowhow, Assyria must pay three years’ taxes to Egypt. The story continues in a classic Type 922 fashion: Esarhaddon is furious with Nadan, since he cannot solve the riddle, and bemoans his rash decision to have Ahiqar executed. Nabu-šuma-iškun hears this, and, in a manner reminiscent of the cupbearer in the Joseph story, tells the king that he can produce Ahiqar, who will certainly know the answer. Ahiqar appears before Esarhaddon, and the king sends him to Egypt. After a long session of answering riddles, Pharaoh tells Ahiqar to build the castle in the air. Ahiqar sends two boys up on eagles, who call down to the Egyptians that they should hand them some bricks and they will start building. Pharaoh says it is impossible to get bricks to people all the way up in the sky, to which Ahiqar replies that if he can’t even get the bricks to his builders, how are they supposed to build the castle. The story ends with Pharaoh paying the tribute to Assyria, Esarhaddon reinstating Ahiqar as advisor, and Nadan dying a cruel death. …. Part Two: Polymathic scholars of Golden Age based upon Ahikar In the history of Islam, the history of philosophy and science, we encounter a handful of polymaths of the Golden Age (c. 800-1300 AD), who, I believe, are simply based upon a greatly embellished and legend-enhanced Ahikar. As we read in Part One, Ahikar has been transformed by legend and embellishment from being a sober military governor and administrator of the highest level for the kingdoms of Assyria and Babylonia, a wise and kindly man who practised almsgiving, into a sage of enyclopædic knowledge - an ancient Leonardo da Vinci, so to speak - and a wonder worker. Islamic Golden Age polymaths In the history of Islam, the history of philosophy and science, we encounter a handful of polymaths of the Golden Age (c. 800-1300 AD), who, I believe, are simply based upon a greatly embellished and legend-enhanced Ahikar. In the same sort of fashion has Ahikar’s c. 700 BC contemporary, the Simeonite Judith, been chronologically projected forward so as to become a supposed Ethiopian queen of c. 900 AD, Gudit (or Judith). The handful of presumed Islamic scholars of the Golden Age to whom I refer are the polymathic Al-Kindi (c. 800); Al-Razi (c. 850); Al-Farabi (c. 900); Avicenna (c. 1000); Averroes (c. 1150); and Ibn Khaldun c. 1300). In these famous names is largely encompassed Islamic philosophy, science, astronomy, cosmology, history, demography, medicine and music for the Golden Age. Now, I find in four of these six names elements of Ahikar’s Assyro-Babylonian names: Esagil-kinni-ubba and Aba-enlil-dari. Thus: Al-Kindi – Esagil-Kinni; Al-Farabi – Enlil-Dar-Ab(i); Avicenna – Ubb-kinni(a); Averroes – Aba-(d)ar(i) This now becomes a huge extension of the already over-stretched Ahikar of legend and pseudo-history, including his influence upon the Koran. If I am correct in identifying Ahikar with at least four of these famed six intellectuals of the so-called Islamic Golden Age, then this will have enormous ramifications for the history of philosophy and science, and, indeed, for the authenticity of Islam.

The Iliad and The Odyssey - comparisons with the Bible

“Of all the books in the Bible, First Samuel has the largest number of references to the Philistines and their dealings with the Israelites. It also contains a considerable number of similarities to the writings of Homer, particularly on the issue of warfare”. Jewish Bible Quarterly We read in this excellent article (2016), LITERARY PARALLELS BETWEEN HOMER’S EPICS AND THE BIBLICAL PHILISTINES, at: https://jbqnew.jewishbible.org/jbq-past-issues/2016/443-july-september-2016/literary-parallels-homers-epics-biblical-philistines/ …. If the biblical Caphtor indeed refers to the region of the Aegean Sea, and if the Philistines were truly of Caphtorite origin, then it might be expected that evidence corroborating the Caphtorite/Aegean origin of the Philistines could be found in a comparison of the Bible to Homer’s great epics, the Iliad and the Odyssey, with their settings in the ancient Aegean world. In Judges, the first biblical book in which the Philistines play a significant role, we find at least two occasions in which contact between the Philistines and the Israelites finds remarkable parallels in the Homeric epics. The first instance describes Shamgar son of Anath, who slew six hundred Philistines with an ox- goad (Judg. 3:31). This unique choice of weaponry finds an astonishing parallel in the Iliad, where the Achaean warrior Diomed, upon being accosted by the Trojan Glaucus, reminds him that even the son of Dryas, mighty Lycurgus, lived not long, seeing that he strove with heavenly gods – he that on a time drave down over the sacred mount of Nysa the nursing mothers of mad Dionysus; and they all let fall to the ground their wands, smitten with an ox-goad by man-slaying Lycurgus (Il. 6.130-134 [emphasis added: all biblical and Homeric emphases in this paper have been added by the author]). In an ironic twist, Shamgar’s unusual taste in weaponry seems to have been borrowed from the very people against whom he wielded it. The second example involves Samson. To the chagrin of his parents, the youthful and headstrong Israelite opts to marry a Philistine woman (Judg. 14:2); during the nuptial feast at Timnah, he strikes a deal with his Philistine hosts in the following manner: Let me propound a riddle to you. If you can give me the right answer during the seven days of the feast, I shall give you thirty linen tunics and thirty sets of clothing; but if you are not able to tell it to me, you must give me thirty linen tunics and thirty sets of clothing (Judg. 14:12-13a). This use of sumptuous6 clothing as economic barter finds its counterpart in the Iliad, where a despondent Priam uses gorgeous apparel, along with precious metal, to ransom the body of his son Hector from an unforgiving Achilles, who is still enraged over Hector’s slaying of Patroclus. Homer states that the Trojan monarch opened the goodly lids of chests, wherefrom he took twelve beauteous robes and twelve cloaks of single fold, and as many coverlets, and as many white mantles, and therewithal as many tunics (Iliad 24.229-230). A similar situation, in which sartorial finery is held on par with jewels and precious metals, appears in the Odyssey: For Antinous he brought a large and beautiful robe, richly broidered, and in it were golden brooches, twelve in all, fitted with curved clasps (Odyssey 18.293-294). It appears that Samson, well versed in Philistine/Aegean custom, knew precisely how to arouse his opponents’ venality. Of all the books in the Bible, First Samuel has the largest number of references to the Philistines and their dealings with the Israelites. It also contains a considerable number of similarities to the writings of Homer, particularly on the issue of warfare. For example, when the Philistine soldiers cower before the power of the Ark of the Covenant, which the Israelites have brought into battle, they exhort each other to ‘be men, O Philistines! Or you will become slaves to the Hebrews as they were slaves to you. Be men and fight!’ (I Sam. 4:9). In a comparable Homeric scene, Ajax exhorts his fellow Achaeans, whose resolve is weakening in the face of a Trojan onslaught, to “be men, my friends, and bethink you of furious might” (Iliad 15.734). A more striking parallel between the Homeric epics and First Samuel occurs slightly later in the book: . . . as Samuel was presenting the burnt offering and the Philistines advanced to attack Israel, the Lord thundered [va-yarem] mightily against the Philistines that day. He threw them into confusion, and they were routed by Israel (I Sam. 7:10). The Israelite God is portrayed as knowing precisely which miraculous intervention would have the greatest effect on the Philistine descendants of Achaean soldiers. According to Homer, there was nothing quite as effective as a peal of ominous thunder from Zeus to take the fight out of the Achaeans: Then himself [Zeus] thundered aloud from Ida, and sent a blazing flash amid the host of the Achaeans; and at sight thereof they were seized with wonder, and pale fear gat hold of all (Iliad 8.75). In an example that mirrors the biblical episode even more closely, Zeus took his tasselled aegis, all gleaming bright, and enfolded Ida with clouds, and lightened and thundered mightily, and shook the aegis, giving victory to the Trojans, but the Achaeans he drave in rout (Iliad 17.594ff.). At the close of the Odyssey, when the eponymous hero and his companions are about to slaughter their enemies, who have dropped their weapons in terror, Athena entreats them to desist. All but Odysseus obey, and it is only the literally thunderous intervention of Zeus that induces him to relent: And now would they have slain them all, and cut them off from returning, had not Athena, daughter of Zeus, who bears the aegis, shouted aloud, and checked all the host, saying: ‘Refrain, men of Ithaca, from grievous war, that with all speed you may part, and that without bloodshed.’ So spoke Athena, and pale fear seized them. Then in their terror the arms flew from their hands and fell one and all to the ground, as the goddess uttered her voice, and they turned toward the city, eager to save their lives. Terribly then shouted the much-enduring, goodly Odysseus, and gathering himself together he swooped upon them like an eagle of lofty flight, and at that moment the son of Cronos cast a flaming thunderbolt, and down it fell before the flashing-eyed daughter of the mighty sire (Odyssey 24.528-545). Thus, in both epics Homer makes it clear that thunder from the king of the gods is the necessary divine manifestation to cause the Achaeans to desist from hostilities. On numerous occasions, the biblical tradition credits God with miraculous intervention to defend Israel from its military enemies: He drowns the Egyptian army in the Red Sea (Ex. 14), rains hailstones upon the Amorite forces (Josh. 10:11), uses a plague to annihilate the Assyrian army besieging Jerusalem (II Kgs. 19:35), creates the illusion of a huge army of chariots against the Aramaeans (II Kgs. 7), and so forth. However, on no occasion does the God of the Israelites use the sound of thunder, as did Zeus in Homer’s tales, except against the Philistines, almost as if the biblical authors knew perfectly well what the Philistine warriors feared the most. The most famous episode involving the Philistines and Israelites is of course the clash between David and Goliath. The central theme of this classic encounter is that each army, facing the other on opposite sides of the battlefield, produces a single champion to fight as a representative of his side: . . . the Philistines [were] stationed on one hill and Israel [was] stationed on the opposite hill; the ravine was between them. A champion of the Philistine forces stepped forward; his name was Goliath of Gath . . . .He stopped and called out to the ranks of Israel, and he said to them: ‘Why should you come out to engage in battle? I am the Philistine, and you are Saul’s servants. Choose one of your men and let him come down against me. If he bests me in combat and kills me, we will become your slaves; but if I best him and kill him, you shall become our slaves and serve us.’ And the Philistine ended, ‘I herewith defy the ranks of Israel! Get me a man and let’s fight it out!’ (I Sam. 17:3-4, 8-10). This motif of a single champion from each opposing army engaging in hand-to-hand combat to determine the outcome of the battle betrays an Aegean origin of the biblical Philistines.7 It is found frequently in the Iliad, and is in fact a highly important element of the tale. In one example, when Paris is stung by Hector’s rebuke of his cowardice in battle, he states: [I]f thou wilt have me war and do battle, make the other Trojans to sit down and all the Achaeans, but set ye me in the midst and Menelaus, dear to Ares, to do battle for Helen and all her possessions. And whichsoever of us twain shall win, and prove him the better man, let him duly take all the wealth and the woman, and bear them to his home (Iliad 3.68-72). In a later battle, Apollo and Athena conspire to induce Hector to come forth as Troy’s single champion: [Thus] spake king Apollo, son of Zeus: ‘Let us rouse the valiant spirit of horse-taming Hector, in hope that he may challenge some one of the Danaans in single fight to do battle with him man to man in dread combat. So shall the bronze-greaved Achaeans have indignation and rouse some one to do battle in single combat against goodly Hector.’ So he spake, and the goddess, flashing-eyed Athene, failed not to hearken. And Helenus, the dear son of Priam, understood in spirit this plan that had found pleasure with the gods in council; and he came and stood by Hector’s side, and spake to him, saying: ‘Hector, son of Priam, peer of Zeus in counsel, wouldst thou now in anywise hearken unto me? for I am thy brother. Make the Trojans to sit down, and all the Achaeans, and do thou challenge whoso is best of the Achaeans to do battle with thee man to man in dread combat’ (Iliad 7.38-52). When Goliath harangues the Israelite ranks to produce a champion to contest him, he almost seems to be saying, “Don’t you Israelites know how we Philistines conduct our battles? Where is your champion to fight me?” The implication here is evidently that the Philistines were well known, even to their enemies, for this Aegean method of combat.8 In addition to his distinctive fighting tactic, Goliath is described as wearing armor and bearing weaponry that find unmistakable echoes in Homer’s world: He had a bronze helmet on his head, and wore a breastplate of scale armor, a bronze breastplate weighing five thousand shekels. He had bronze greaves on his legs, and a bronze javelin [slung] from his shoulders. The shaft of his spear was like a weaver’s bar, and the iron head of his spear weighed six hundred shekels (I Sam. 17:5-7). This is highly reminiscent of Homer’s depictions of Trojan and Achaean soldiers, particularly in the wearing of greaves, the enormous size of the spear, and the use of two spears by a single warrior (in Goliath’s case, a spear and a javelin): “The greaves first he [Achilles] set about his legs” (Iliad 19.369); as for Hector, “in his hand he held a spear of eleven cubits” (Iliad. 6.318-319). Odysseus carried a “helmet and shield and two spears” (Odyssey 1.256); elsewhere the same hero declares, “I had put on my glorious armor and grasped in my hand two long spears” (Odyssey 12.228-229); still later “he took two mighty spears, tipped with bronze” (Odyssey 22.125). Down to nearly every detail, Goliath is depicted as an Aegean warrior par excellence. When the Israelite forces finally manage to produce their own representative champion in the person of David, Goliath hurls the following threat at the youth: ‘I will give your flesh to the birds of the sky and the beasts of the field’ (I Sam. 17:44). This expression finds parallels in the Iliad, where Achilles, exulting over the death of Hector, boasts that “dogs and birds shall devour thee utterly” (Iliad 22.354), while earlier, Athena predicts that “of a surety many a one of the Trojans shall glut the dogs and birds” (Iliad 8.378-379). Ironically, before dispatching Goliath, David speaks to his adversary in nearly identical terms: ‘I will give the carcasses of the Philistine camp to the birds of the sky and the beasts of the earth’ (I Sam. 17:46b). This is not the only instance in which David adopts Philistine/Achaean conventions of warfare. Upon dispatching the towering braggart with a well-aimed slingstone, David uses Goliath’s sword to decapitate his fallen foe (I Sam. 17:51); then David took the head of the Philistine and brought it to Jerusalem; and he put his weapons in his own tent (I Sam. 17:54). This morbid deed was actually something practiced by the Philistines themselves – as well as by Homer’s Achaean warriors. When Goliath’s countrymen subsequently defeat the Israelites at Mt. Gilboa, King Saul is slain. The next day, First Samuel 31:8-10 recounts: the Philistines came to strip the slain, and they found Saul and his three sons lying on Mount Gilboa. They cut off his head and stripped him of his armor. . . .They placed his armor in the temple of Ashtaroth, and they impaled his body on the wall of Beth-shan. The Philistine custom of stripping a fallen opponent’s corpse of its armor appears with great frequency in the Iliad (4.466; 5.48-49, 163-164; 6.27-28; 13.550-551; 15.343; 16.500, 545, 560ff.; 22.367-368, etc.). In fact, Book 17 focuses on Hector’s stripping Patroclus’ corpse of its armor (125ff.) and the Achaeans’ overwhelming desire to avenge this effrontery. Further, the gruesome habit of decapitating the defeated soldier’s corpse after stripping it of its armor, as David did to Goliath and the Philistines did to Saul, finds parallels in Homer’s Aegean world: Now Hector, when he had stripped from Patroclus his glorious armour, sought to hale him away that he might cut the head from off his shoulders with the sharp bronze, and drag off the corpse, and give it to the dogs of Troy… (Iliad 17:125ff.).

An early study of Philistine origins

R.A.S. Macalister wrote in 1913: THE PHILISTINES THEIR HISTORY AND CIVILIZATION CHAPTER I THE ORIGIN OF THE PHILISTINES …. Now while some of the earlier periods shade into one another, like the colours of a rainbow, so that it is difficult to tell where the one ends and the next begins, this is not the case of the latest periods, the changes in which have evidently been produced by violence. The chief manifestation is the destruction of Knossos, which took place, apparently as a result of invasion from the mainland, at the very end of the period known as Late Minoan II: that is to say about 1400 B.C. [sic] The inferior style called Late Minoan III—the style which till recent years we had been accustomed to call Mycenaean—succeeded at once and without any intermediate transition to the style of Late Minoan II immediately after this raid. It was evidently the degraded style that had developed in the mainland among the successful invaders, founded upon (or, rather, degenerated from) works of art which had spread by way of trade to the adjacent lands, in the flourishing days of Cretan civilization. We have seen that in Egyptian tombs of about 1500 B.C. [sic] there are to be seen paintings of apparently Cretan messengers and merchants, called by the name of Keftiu, bearing Cretan goods: and in addition we find the actual tangible goods themselves, deposited with the Egyptian dead. Damien Mackey’s comment: “1500 BC” here needs to be revised to c. C10th BC. In Palestine and elsewhere occasional scraps of the 'palace' styles come to light. But the early specimens of Cretan art found in these regions are all exotic, just as (to quote a parallel often cited in illustration) the specimens of Chinese or Japanese porcelain exhibited in London drawing-rooms are exotic; and they affect but little the inferior native arts of the places where they are found. It is not till we reach the beginning of Late Minoan III, after the sack of Knossos, that we find Minoan culture actually taking root in the eastern lands of the Mediterranean, such as Cyprus and the adjacent coasts of Asia Minor and Syria. We can hardly dissociate this phenomenon from the sack of Knossos. The very limitations of the area over which the 'Mycenaean' art has been found are enough to show that its distribution was not a result of peaceful trade. Thus, the Hittite domination of Central and Western Asia Minor was still strong enough to prevent foreign settlers from establishing themselves in those provinces: in consequence Mycenaean civilization is there absent. The spread of the debased Cretan culture over Southern Asia Minor, Cyprus, and North Syria, between 1400 and 1200 B.C. must have been due to the movements of peoples, one incident in which was the sack of Knossos 1: and this is true, whether those who carried the Cretan art were refugees from Crete, or were the conquerors of Crete seeking yet further lands to spoil. In short, the sack of Knossos and the breaking of the Cretan power was an episode—it may be, was the crucial and causative episode—in a general disturbance which the fourteenth to the twelfth centuries B.C. witnessed over the whole Eastern Mediterranean basin. The mutual relations of the different communities were as delicately poised as in modern Europe: any abnormal motion in one part of the system tended to upset the balance of the whole. Egypt was internally in a ferment, thanks to the eccentricities of the crazy dilettante Ikhnaton, and was thus unable to protect her foreign possessions; the nomads of Arabia, the Sutu and Habiru, were pressing from the South and East on the Palestinian and Syrian towns; the dispossessed Cretans were crowding to the neighbouring lands on the north; the might of the Hittites, themselves destined to fall to pieces not long afterwards, blocked progress northward: it is little wonder that disorders of various kinds resulted from the consequent congestion. It is just in this time of confusion that we begin to hear, vaguely at first, of a number of little nationalities—people never definitely assigned to any particular place, but appearing now here, now there, fighting sometimes with, sometimes against, the Egyptians and their allies. And what gives these tribelets their surpassing interest is the greatness of the names they bear. The unsatisfying and contemptuous allusions of the Egyptian scribes record for us the 'day of small things' of people destined to revolutionize the world. We first meet these tribes in the Tell el-Amarna letters. The king of Alašia (Cyprus) complains that his coasts are being raided by the Lukku, who yearly plunder one small town after another. 1 That indefatigable correspondent, Rib-Addi, in two letters, complains that one Biḫura has sent people of the Sutu to his town and slain certain Sherdan men—apparently Egyptian mercenaries in the town guard. 2 In a mutilated passage in another letter Rib-Addi mentions the Sherdan again, in connexion with an attempt on his own life. Then Abi-Milki reports 3 that 'the king of Danuna is dead, and his brother has become king after him, and his land is at peace'. It is almost the only word of peace in the whole dreary Tell el-Amarna record. Next we hear of these tribes in their league with the Hittites against Ramessu [Ramses] II, when he set out to recover the ground lost to Egypt during the futile reign of Ikhnaton. 4 With the Hittites were allied people from Rk[w] Drdnw M[ȝ]św Mȝwnw or irwnw Pdśw Ḳrḳš This was in 1333 B.C. On the side of Ramessu fought mercenaries called Šȝrḍȝhȝ ( ) no doubt the Sherdan of whom we have heard already in the Tell el-Amarna letters. These people were evidently ready to sell their services to whomsoever paid for them, for we find them later operating against their former Egyptian masters. Damien Mackey’s comment: The “1333 BC” here needs to be revised to c. C8th BC., the proper era of Ramses II: The Complete Ramses II (7) The Complete Ramses II About thirty years later, when Merneptah was on the throne, there was a revolt of the Libyans, and with many allies from the 'Peoples of the Sea' they proceeded to attack Egypt. Damien Mackey’s comment: Although Merenptah (Merneptah) is traditionally considered to have succeeded his father, Ramses II, I strongly suspect that Merenptah was, in fact, Seti (Sety) Merenptah, the father of Ramses II. Though the Philistines do not actually appear among the names of the allies, the history of this invasion is one of the most important in the origines of that remarkable people. The details are recorded in four inscriptions set up by the king after his victory over the invaders, one of which inscriptions is the famous 'Israel' stela. The first inscription is that of the temple of Karnak, a translation of which will be found in Breasted's Ancient Records, vol. iii, p. 241. This inscription begins with a list of the allied enemies: ȝkw[ȝ]šw Tršw Rkw Šrdnw Škršw The beginning of the inscription is lost, but the list is probably complete, as in the sequel, where the allied tribes are referred to more than once, no other names are mentioned. Merneptah, after extolling his own valour and the military preparations he had made, tells us how he had received news that (Maraiwi or something similar) 'the miserable chief of Libya', with his allies aforesaid, had come with his family to the western boundary of Egypt. Enraged like a lion, he assembled his officers and to them expressed his opinion of the invaders in a way that leaves nothing to the imagination. 'They spend their time going about and fighting to fill their bellies day by day: they come to Egypt to seek the needs of their mouths: their chief is like a dog, without courage . . . .' Some of the vigorous old king's expressions have been bowdlerised by the hand of Time, which has deprived us of a course of the inscribed masonry of the temple but notwithstanding we have an admirable description of restless sea-rovers, engaged in constant plunder and piracy. Then Merneptah, strengthened by a vision of his patron Ptah which appeared to him in the night, led out his warriors, defeated the Libyans—whose 'vile fallen chief' justified Merneptah's opinion of him by fleeing, and, in the words of the official report of the Egyptian general to his master, 'he passed in safety by favour of the night . . . all the gods overthrew him for the sake of Egypt: his boasting is made void: his curses have come to roost: no one knows if he be alive or dead, and even if he lives he will never rule again. They have put in his place a brother of his who fights him whenever he sees him'. The list of slain and captives is much mutilated, but is of some importance. For the slain were reckoned by cutting off and counting the phalli of circumcised, the hands of uncircumcised victims. 1 From the classification we see that at the time of the victory of Merneptah, the Libyans were circumcised, while the Shardanu and Shekelesh and Ekwesh, as we may provisionally vocalize the names, were not circumcised. The inscription ends with the flamboyant speech of Merneptah to his court, and their reply, over which we need not linger. Nor do the other inscriptions relating to the event add anything of importance for our present purpose. About a hundred years later [sic] we meet some of these tribes again, on the walls of the great fortified temple of Medinet Habu near Thebes, which Ramessu III, the last of the great kings of Egypt, built to celebrate the events of his reign. Damien Mackey’s comment: Regarding Ramses so-called III, see e.g. my article: Ramses II, Ramses III (8) Ramses II, Ramses III Some ‘ramifying’ similarities …. “[Rameses III’s] … children turned out to resemble Rameses II’s not only in their names but also in their early deaths”. N. Grimal Should revisionists perhaps have realised, in their efforts to streamline the later Egyptian history, that the troublesome Ramses II ought to be merged as one with the similarly troublesome Ramses III? …. These events are recorded in sculptured scenes, interpreted and explained by long hieroglyphic inscriptions. It is deplorable that the latter are less informing than they might have been: we grudge bitterly the precious space wasted in grovelling compliments to the majesty of the victorious monarch, and we would have gladly dispensed with the obscure and would-be poetical style which the writer of the inscription affected. 2 Ramessu III came to the throne about 1200 B.C. [sic] 3 Another Libyan invasion menaced the land in his fifth year, but the energetic monarch, who had already been careful to organize the military resources of Egypt, was successful in beating it back. War-galleys from the northern countries, especially the Purasati and the Zakkala, accompanied the invading Libyans; but this latter element in the assault was only a foretaste of the yet more formidable attack which they were destined to make on Egypt three years later—that is to say, roughly about 1192 B.C. The inscription describing this war is engraved on the second pylon of the temple of Medinet Habu. Omitting a dreary encomium of the Pharaoh, with which it opens, and a long hymn of triumph with which it ends, we may confine our attention to the historical events recorded in the hieroglyphs, and pictured in the representations of battles that accompany them. The inscription records how the Northerners were disturbed, and proceeded to move eastward and southward, swamping in turn the land of the Hittites, Carchemish, Arvad, Cyprus, Syria, and other places in the sane region. We are thus to picture a great southward march through Asia Minor, Syria, and Palestine. Or, rather, we are to imagine a double advance, by land and by sea: the landward march, which included two-wheeled ox-carts for the women and children, as the accompanying picture indicates; and a sea expedition, in which no doubt the spare stores would be carried more easily than on the rough Syrian roads. Clearly they were tribes accustomed to sea-faring who thus ventured on the stormy Mediterranean; clearly too, it was no mere military expedition, but a migration of wanderers accompanied by their families and seeking a new home. 1 The principal elements in the great coalition are the following: Šrdnw Duynw Prśtw Tȝkrw W[ȝ]ššw of the Sea as well as the Škršȝw, of which we have heard in previous documents. 'With hearts confident and full of plans', as the inscription says, they advanced by land and by sea to Egypt. But Ramessu was ready to 'trap them like wild-fowl'. He strengthened his Syrian frontier, and at the same time fortified the harbours or river mouths 'with warships, galleys, and barges'. The actual battles are not described, though they are pictured in the accompanying cartoons: but the successful issue of these military preparations is graphically recorded. 'Those who reached my boundary,' says the king, 'their seed is not: their heart and their soul are finished for ever and ever. As for those who had assembled before them on the sea . . . they were dragged, overturned, and laid low upon the beach: slain and made heaps from end to end of their galleys, while all their things were cast upon the water.' The scenes in which the land and naval engagements are represented are of great importance, in that they are contemporary records of the general appearance of the invaders and of their equipment. The naval battle, the earliest of which any pictorial record remains, is graphically portrayed. We see the Egyptian archers sweeping the crews of the invading vessels almost out of existence, and then closing in and finishing the work with their swords; one of the northerners’ vessels is capsized and those of its crew who swim to land are taken captive by the Egyptians waiting on the shore. In later scenes we see the prisoners paraded before the king, and the tale of the victims—counted by enumerating the hands chopped off the bodies. The passage in the great Harris Papyrus, which also contains a record of the reign of Ramessu III, 1 adds very little to the information afforded us by the Medinet Habu inscription. The 'Danaiuna' are there spoken of as islanders. We are told that the Purasati and the Zakkala were 'made ashes', while the Shekelesh (called in the Harris Papyrus Shardani, who thus once more appear against Egypt) and the Washasha were settled in strongholds and bound. From all these people the king claims to have levied taxes in clothing and in grain. As we have seen, the march of the coalition had been successful until their arrival in Egypt. The Hittites and North Syrians had been so crippled by them that Ramessu took the opportunity to extend the frontier of Egyptian territory northward. We need not follow this campaign, which does not directly concern us: but it has this indirect bearing on the subject, that the twofold ravaging of Syria, before and after the great victory of Ramessu, left it weakened and opened the door for the colonization of its coast-lands by the beaten remnant of the invading army. Ramessu III died in or about 1167 B.C., and the conquered tribes began to recover their lost ground. For that powerful monarch was succeeded by a series of weak ghost-kings who disgraced the great name of Ramessu which, one and all, they bore. More and more did they become puppets in the hands of the priesthood, who cared for nothing but enriching the treasures of their temples. The frontier of Egypt was neglected. Less than a hundred years after the crushing defeat of the coalition, the situation was strangely reversed, as one of the most remarkable documents that have come down to us from antiquity allows us to see. This document is the famous Golénischeff papyrus, now at St. Petersburg. But before we proceed to an examination of its contents we must review the Egyptian materials, which we have now briefly set forth, a little more closely. The names of the tribes, with some doubtful exceptions, are easily equated to those of peoples living in Asia Minor. We may gather a list of them out of the various authorities which have been set out above, adding to the Egyptian consonant-skeleton a provisional vocalization, and remembering that r and l are interchangeable in Egyptian: Tell el-Amarna Ramessu II Merneptah Ramessu III c. 1400 B.C. 1333 B.C. c. 1300 B.C. c. 1198 B.C. 1. Lukku X X X - 2. Sherdanu X X X X 3. Danunu X - - X 4. Dardanu - X - - 5. Masa - X - - 6. Mawuna or Yaruna (?) - X - - 7. Pidasa - X - - 8. Kelekesh - X - - 9. Ekwesh - - X - 10. Turisha - - X - 11. Shekelesh - - X X 12. Pulasati - - - X 13. Zakkala - - - X 14. Washasha - - - X An X denotes 'present in', a - 'absent from' the lists. The majority of these fourteen names too closely resemble names known from classical sources for the resemblance to be accidental. It will be found that almost every one of these names can be easily identified with the name of the coast dwellers of Asia Minor; and vice versa, with one significant exception, the coast-land regions of Asia Minor are all to be found in recognizable forms in the Egyptian lists. The -sha or -shu termination is to be neglected as an ethnic formative. Thus, beginning with the Hellespont, the Troas is represented in the Turisha, who have been correctly identified with the future Tyrrhenians (Tursci) as are the Pulasati with the future Philistines. Dardanus in the Troad is represented by the Dardanu. They are the carriers of the Trojan traditions to Italy. 1 Mysia is represented by the Masa, Lydia by the Sherdanu from the town of Sardis. These are the future Sardinians. And the more inland region of Maeonia is echoed in the Mawuna, if that be the correct reading. We now come to a gap: the Carians, at the S.V. corner of Asia Minor, do not appear in any recognizable form in the list, except that the North Carian town of Pedasus seems to be echoed by the Pidasa. To this hiatus we shall return presently. The Lycians are conspicuous as the Lukku. The name of the sea-coast region of Pamphylia is clearly a later appellation, expressive of the variety of tribes and nationalities which has always characterized the Levant coast. The inland Pisidian town of Sagalassus finds its echo in the Shekelesh. The Cilicians are represented by the Kelekesh, and this brings us to the corner between Asia Minor and North Syria. The only names not represented in the foregoing analysis are the Danunu, Ekwesh, and the three tribes which first appear in the Ramessu III invasion, the Pulasati, Zakkala, and Washasha. The first two of these, it is generally agreed, are to be equated to the Danaoi and the Achaeans 2—the first appearance in historic record of these historic names. The latter do not appear in the Ramessu III lists: there were no Achaeans in the migration from Asia Minor. The Pulasati are unquestionably to be equated to the future Philistines, north of whom we find later the Zakkala settled on the Palestinian coast. The Washasha remain obscure, both in origin and fate; but a suggestion will be made presently regarding them. They can hardly have been the ancestors of the Indo-European Oscans. The various lines of evidence which have been set forth in the preceding pages indicate Crete or its neighbourhood as the probable land of origin of this group of tribes. They may be recapitulated: (1) The Philistines, or a branch of them, are sometimes called Cherethites or Cretans. (2) They are said to come from Caphtor, a name more like Keftiu than anything else, which certainly denotes a place where the Cretan civilization was dominant. (3) The hieratic school-tablet mentions 'Akašou' as a Keftian name: it is also Philistine [Achish]. To this may be added the important fact that the Phaestos disk, the inscription on which will be considered later in this book, shows us among its signs a head with a plumed head-dress, very similar to that shown on the Philistine captives represented at Medinet Habu. We must not, however, forget the fact at which we paused for a moment, that thrice the Philistine guard of the Hebrew kings are spoken of as the Carians; and that the Carians are not otherwise represented in the lists of Egyptian invaders. We are probably not to confine our search for the origin of the Zakkala-Philistine-Washasha league to Crete alone: the neighbouring strip of mainland coast probably supplied its contingent to the sea-pirates. The connexion of Caria with Crete was traditional to the time of Strabo; 'the most generally received account is that the Carians, then called Leleges, were governed by Minos, and occupied the islands; then removing to the continent, they obtained possession of a large tract of sea-coast and of the interior, by driving out the former occupiers, who were for the greater part Leleges and Pelasgi.' 1 Further, he quotes Alcaeus's expression, 'shaking a Carian crest,' which is suggestive of the plumed head-dress of the Philistines. Again, speaking of the city Caunus, on the shore opposite Rhodes, he tells us that its inhabitants 'speak the same language as the Carians, came from Crete, and retained their own laws and customs' 2—which, however, Herodotus 3 contradicts. Herodotus indeed (loc. cit.) gives us the same tradition as Strabo regarding the origin of the Carians: they 'had come from the islands to the continent. For being subjects of Minos, and anciently called Leleges, they occupied the islands without paying any tribute, so far as I can find by inquiring into the remotest times; but whenever Minos required them, they manned his ships; and as Minos subdued an extensive territory, and was successful in war, the Carians were by far the most famous of all nations in those times. They also introduced three inventions which the Greeks have adopted; of fastening crests on helmets, putting devices on shields, and putting handles on shields. . . . After a long time the Dorians and Ionians drove the Carians out of the islands and so they came to the continent. This is the account that the Cretans give of the Carians, but the Carians do not admit its correctness, considering themselves to be autochthonous inhabitants of the continent . . . and in testimony of this they show an ancient temple of Zeus Carios at Mylasa.' If then by the Pulasati we are to fill in the hiatus in the list of Asia Minor coast-dwellers, the most reasonable explanation of the name is after all the old theory that it is to be equated with Pelasgi. And if the worshippers of Zeus Carios settled in Palestine, they might be expected to bring their god with them and to erect a temple to him. Now we read in 1 Samuel vii, that the Philistines came up against the Israelites who were holding a religious ceremony in Mizpah; that they were beaten back by a thunderstorm, and chased in panic from Mizpah to a place called Beth-Car (v. 11). We may suppose that the chase stopped at Beth-Car because it was within Philistine territory; but unfortunately all the efforts to identify this place, not otherwise known, have proved futile. Very likely it was not an inhabited town or village at all, but a sanctuary: it was raised on a conspicuous height (for the chase stopped under Beth-Car): and the name means House of Car, 1 as Beth-Dagon means House or Temple of Dagon. This obscure incident, therefore, affords one more link to the chain. If the Cretans and the Carians together were represented by Zakkala-Pulasati-Washasha league, we might expect to find some elements from the two important islands of Rhodes and Carpathos, which lie like the piers of a bridge between Crete and the Carian mainland. And I think we may, without comparisons too far-fetched, actually find such elements. Strabo tells us 2 that a former name of Rhodes was Ophiussa: and we can hardly avoid at least seeing the similarity between this name and that of the Washasha. 3 And as for Carpathos, which Homer calls Crapathos, is it too bold to hear in this classical name an echo of the pre-Hellenic word, whatever it may have been, which the Egyptians corrupted to Keftiu, and the Hebrews to Caphtor? 4 What then are we to make of the name of the Zakkala or Zakkara? This has hitherto proved a crux. Petrie identifies it with Zakro in Crete 5; but as has several times been pointed out regarding this identification, we do not know how old the name Zakro may be. As we have seen that all the other tribes take their name from the coasts of Asia Minor, it is probable that the Zakkala are the Cretan contingents to the coalition: and it may be that in their name we are to see the interpretation of the mysterious Casluhim of the Table of Nations 1 (‏כסלחים‎ being a mistake for ‏סכל׳‎). The most frequently suggested identification, with the Teucrians (assigned by Strabo on the authority of Callinus to a Cretan origin), is perhaps the most satisfactory as yet put forward; notwithstanding the just criticism of W. Max Müller 2 that the double k and the vowel of the first syllable are difficulties not to be lightly evaded. Clerinont-Ganneau 3 would equate them to a Nabatean Arab tribe, the Δαχαρηνοί, mentioned by Stephanus of Byzantium; but, as Weill 4 points out, it is highly improbable that one of the allied tribes should have been Semitic in origin; if the similarity of names be more than an accident, it is more likely that the Arabs should have borrowed it. The conclusion indicated therefore is that the Philistines were a people composed of several septs, derived from Crete and the southwest corner of Asia Minor. Their civilization, probably, was derived from Crete, and though there was a large Carian element in their composition, they may fairly be said to have been the people who imported with them to Palestine the memories and traditions of the great days of Minos. ….